bernabias home shirt
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 14,916
I'm sure we have very very clever lawyers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Financial Fair Play Question
- Thread starter Cobwebcat
- Start date
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
fbloke said:Cobwebcat said:fbloke said:This is the one that confuses many.
City could well have a trillion, gazillion, bazillion quid in the bank but if they make a trading loss thats all that matters.
Yes BUT read the last line of my post. Then I would be interested to know why this ISNT OK as United are doing it NOW.
As United make a PROFIT because of their massive income they can afford to do it for NOW.
Thats why they are on a knife edge as if revenues do fall even by 5% there could be big problems for them.
And that is why it was so important that Ronaldo @ £80m was sold.
As City made a LOSS of £121m it is a moot point about how much cash they have in the bank.
But for FFPR City will no doubt show a massive increase in revenues and head towards a profit.
Yes and WITH THAT PROFIT we use it to pay the interest on a huge loan.
BoyBlue_1985
Well-Known Member
Was reading something the other day and the guy said that as soon as Uefa try and ban a team from the competition they will just start us this often talked about super league every one will jump ship and Platini and Uefa will look like utter cunts, which they are!!
Santiago Street
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 1,733
VOOMER said:Seriously, has everyone's sense of reason and rational thought deserted them? Our owners who made £1.5 billion inside 6 months from trading involving Barclays, are we now saying the are idiots who haven't planned for and investigated the most poorly drawn up and legally porus set of rules ever applied to the finances of a world sport? I know things are going slow, but geez, let the media moron's deal with the art of muck spreading.
Perfect summary.
We've nothing to worry about.
Loans are negative equity, borrowing would put our financial accounts on a worst track than before. Money you have in the bank is irrelevant because at the moment we have no money in the bank we made a loss of millions last year, however thanks to Sheikh Mansour when he injects money into City it's in the form of value for shares. IE he buys a bigger share in City as the value goes up, he bought City for 120 million?
The club is now probably worth 500 million+ thanks to the investment and assets it has gained, not to mention the status we are now in and although he never will, should he sell up he would expect a full return on that amount and that's down to the fact he owns 100% of City, in other words when he gives us more money, he effectively is lending it to us in exchange for shares.
Should the day come that he sells City that loan will then be repaid in the sell price, dependent obviously on the buyer and other factors. This though will NEVER happen, these guys plan for the ultra long term in all of their investments and although the Sheikh has a massive asset in City now (close to a billion) he will be fully happy because one day our value will far exceed that investment as we become self sufficient.
To explain better.
If City are worth X Sheikh Mansour gets all of X should he sell, when he lends us money, X becomes larger, in simple terms he isn't giving us cold hard cash, we are giving him some more of the club for his money. That is how we stay debt free and can afford transfers, money cannot simply be transferred into City's account or anything like that, it's all done in equity (shares).
To add why should Sheikh Mansour give us money for no equity in return? Why should he buy 100 million pounds of Manchester City but to him it's worth 50 million, that doesn't make business sense, so he gets a bigger slice of the pie.
One thing to note, when Sheikh Mansour purchases part of this club or puts the capital forward for his bigger share, this does not count as income for Manchester City Football Club as this isn't money gained through commercial/business means, he is 'LENDING' the club money, not giving.
If we borrowed billions, we would then be in billions of debt and HAVE to repay it, this goes down in the accounts as expenditure which would be weighed up against our income that year, now obviously the interest and repayments on a billion or whatever are going to be a lot larger then the income we make so therefore we would make a massive loss, hence why loans in the cold hard cash sense that we all know are not an option plus it's highly unlikely a bond of this amount could even be raised, United struggled to get 500 million and they have the best turnover in the Premier League.
As for the FFP rules, we will meet this rules solely through commercial means, Khaldoon has already said they are exploring every single avenue possible but he is happy with the progress.
Nothing to worry about.
The club is now probably worth 500 million+ thanks to the investment and assets it has gained, not to mention the status we are now in and although he never will, should he sell up he would expect a full return on that amount and that's down to the fact he owns 100% of City, in other words when he gives us more money, he effectively is lending it to us in exchange for shares.
Should the day come that he sells City that loan will then be repaid in the sell price, dependent obviously on the buyer and other factors. This though will NEVER happen, these guys plan for the ultra long term in all of their investments and although the Sheikh has a massive asset in City now (close to a billion) he will be fully happy because one day our value will far exceed that investment as we become self sufficient.
To explain better.
If City are worth X Sheikh Mansour gets all of X should he sell, when he lends us money, X becomes larger, in simple terms he isn't giving us cold hard cash, we are giving him some more of the club for his money. That is how we stay debt free and can afford transfers, money cannot simply be transferred into City's account or anything like that, it's all done in equity (shares).
To add why should Sheikh Mansour give us money for no equity in return? Why should he buy 100 million pounds of Manchester City but to him it's worth 50 million, that doesn't make business sense, so he gets a bigger slice of the pie.
One thing to note, when Sheikh Mansour purchases part of this club or puts the capital forward for his bigger share, this does not count as income for Manchester City Football Club as this isn't money gained through commercial/business means, he is 'LENDING' the club money, not giving.
If we borrowed billions, we would then be in billions of debt and HAVE to repay it, this goes down in the accounts as expenditure which would be weighed up against our income that year, now obviously the interest and repayments on a billion or whatever are going to be a lot larger then the income we make so therefore we would make a massive loss, hence why loans in the cold hard cash sense that we all know are not an option plus it's highly unlikely a bond of this amount could even be raised, United struggled to get 500 million and they have the best turnover in the Premier League.
As for the FFP rules, we will meet this rules solely through commercial means, Khaldoon has already said they are exploring every single avenue possible but he is happy with the progress.
Nothing to worry about.
D
D
Deleted member 14625
Guest
Don't worry one little bit pal! FFPR will not be this doomsday thing too many think it will be. It is in place to make clubs start running themselves better as businesses. If clubs can show they have plans in place to make profits (not even have things in place, just plans will do), then they will pass the FFPR. It is not in place to stop Real Madrid, Chelsea and ourselves from entering European comps!Cobwebcat said:Why can't City borrow a billion pounds at a low rate of interest to buy players and pay wages? OK we are in debt but only the interest payments would be charged against our balance sheet.
It's what the rags have effectively done. It's like playing your joker, you can only do it once but when you do it is up to you. Our debt is like 1/20th of most of the big teams so there is a lot of leeway.
Would show how daft the rules are....you are allowed to be in debt but as long as your turnover covers the interest payments on that debt you are OK.
The above assumes that we increase our revenue to cover current costs plus the cost of the loan.
We aren't in debt because debt means you owe people or businesses money, we don't! Sheikh Mansour owns us 100%. He isn't lending money from anyone to buy players, it is his money or money from his businesses, money that we do not have to pay back to anybody. Therefore we are not in debt!
What we are is we are running at a loss at the moment. We are spending more than we have coming in. That is not debt, that is running at a loss. But if we can show that we can make more money than we have been doing (finishing joint second in the league, winning the FA Cup, selling up to ten players over the summer, increasing ticket prices for next season, introducing packeges like "Superbia" and having a lot more corporate packages available, more income from Champions League television rights, income from playing in the CL itself, if we progress we get even more money on top, increase merchadise revenues here and around the world, the plans we have in place for developments around the stadium............) or even merely have plans in place to eventually make more money than we have done recently WE WILL BE FINE!
And we will! We really don't have to worry! City don't worry about a thing, cos every little thing is gonna be alright!
bluemoonste
Well-Known Member
I'm sure the Sheik has THE best accountants money can buy and they can produce whatever books they want to.